Meanwhile, what you missed, is that under the scheme of a PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ADVISER to all eligible Presidential Candidates, Obama will infiltrate the Trump Campaign to share a form of counter- intelligence on behalf of the 2016 Democratic nominee by EXECUTIVE ORDER. Both major campaigns will be GUIDED by the Obama Administration and re-educated and so forth 6 months prior to the National Election of 2016? What? So perhaps THIS is what Obama really means in examining Trump's records so as to help defeat him by calling an Executive Order Infiltration and espionage as examining Trump's records?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/...

"May 06, 2016
Executive Order -- Facilitation of a Presidential Transition

Sec. 3.(b)
(iv) during a year in which a Presidential election will be held, a transition representative for each eligible candidate, who shall serve in an advisory capacity;

(c) The Agency Transition Directors Council shall:

(i) ensure the Federal Government has an integrated strategy for addressing interagency challenges and responsibilities around Presidential transitions and turnover of non-career appointees;

(ii) coordinate transition activities among the Executive Office of the President, agencies, and the transition team of eligible candidates and the President-elect and Vice-President-elect;

(iii) draw on guidance provided by the White House Transition Coordinating Council...

(v) provide guidance to agencies in gathering briefing materials and information relating to the Presidential transition that may be requested by eligible candidates;

(vi) ensure materials and information described in subparagraph (v) of this subsection are prepared not later than November 1 of the year during which a Presidential election is held;

(vii) ensure agencies adequately prepare career employees who are designated to fill non-career positions during a Presidential transition; and

(viii) consult with the President's Management Council, or any successor thereto, in carrying out its duties.

(d) The Agency Transition Directors Council shall meet:

(i) subject to subparagraph (ii) of this subsection, not less than once per year; and

(ii) during the period beginning on the date that is 6 months before a Presidential election and ending on the date on which the President-elect is inaugurated, on a regular basis as necessary to carry out its duties and authorities."

Apply the last two words to yourself. It fits.

Quoting Edwin Viera, http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin283.htm
"As anyone with 20-20 political vision can see, America’s domestic enemies have taken off their velvet gloves to reveal the iron fists underneath, by employing against ...America ultimately, the modern Bolshevistic strategy of socio-political destabilization through so-called “non-violent direct action”, “weathermen” tactics, and “color revolutions”—all in line with the old Leninist/Stalinist slogan, “there are no fortresses which Bolsheviks cannot storm”.
Please refrain from chiding me that the contemporary Establishment is not, to one degree or another, made up largely of Bolsheviks. The opposite is obviously true. Some are retreaded Trotskyites (who call themselves “neoconservatives”). Others are watered-down Mensheviks (who call themselves “social democrats” or “moderate socialists”). Others are the equivalent of NEP-men (better known here as “corporate socialists”, because they rely on governmental intervention in the economy to guarantee profits for themselves, while offloading losses onto the backs of the general public). And all of them are doctrinaire Leninists, inasmuch as they subscribe to his notion that “[t]he scientific term ‘dictatorship’ means nothing more nor less than authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force”. Vladimir I. Lenin, “A Contribution to the History of the Question of the Dictatorship, A Note” [1920], in Collected Works (Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Progress Publishers, 4th English Edition, 1966), Volume 31, at 353.

None of these people gives a tinker’s dam for the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution—indeed, they believe themselves to be “untrammeled by any laws”. And all of them enthusiastically promote the present-day global “war on terrorism”, under color of which a para-militarized police-state apparatus, “absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force”, is being built up within this country in order to wage a domestic “war of terrorism” against the American people. See my book By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law” for the particulars on this.

If I may base my appreciation of the present situation upon an historical parallel drawn from Germany’s dolorous experience under the Weimar government in the 1920s and 1930s (which is probably familiar to most readers of this commentary), the advent of these bare-knuckled mass assaults on this country amounts to our own home-grown Bolsheviks’ declaration of ein Kampf um die Macht auf Leben und Tod (a struggle for power to the death). They will employ their Rotfrontkämpferbund (Red Front fighters’ league) to try to derail Trump’s nomination, through die Herrschaft des Pöbels auf der Straße (mobocracy in the street).
... Trump is the sort of individual, perhaps rough-hewn but basically honest, who might have saved Germany from Hitlerism, as well as from Bolshevism, had the good Germans who came forward in der Wiederstand (the resistance-movement) after 1933 been more prescient and better organized before then.

One may ask why America’s Bolsheviks have decided to come out of the closet to exhibit their true coloration by unleashing mobocracy in the street, when they can (and surely will) employ every kind of old-fashioned fraud familiar in American politics to steal the election. The answer is that they anticipate their inability to put into practice Stalin’s apperçu that who votes is less important than who counts the votes, and are prudently preparing for the worst possible eventuality—namely, that in these unsettled times even widespread electoral fraud may not deprive Trump of victory if the polling-places are inundated by a true “revolt of the masses”. Moreover, even the most effective techniques of electoral fraud will be useless after the election... with the Bolsheviks suffering defeat after defeat.
... the Bolsheviks will not be able to rely exclusively upon their co-conspirators, fellow travelers, dupes, useful idiots, and assorted fools in Congress, the Judiciary, and the bureaucracy....
To put iron in their cronies’ backbones, the Bolsheviks will need to provide them with muscle in the streets: namely, hordes of well-funded, well-drilled “protesters” and “dissenters” deployed to shout down, or violently shut down, every popular manifestation of support for Trump."

Brianroy's comments to the above:
Or put it another way, Cruz is just another Communist-Socialist funded by the same banker systems that put them in power in Russia under Lenin and then Stalin, wrapping himself in an American flag, while a foreign usurper attempting to bring in a World Communist Globalist Government under another SCAM and pretense of it being something else.

I read and understand at 400 pages an hour. Others read faster. By experience, I have learned to get my say in, and then defend it if I have to, or others can cut and paste and use it for part of their own research and understanding. It is better to have it all in one place than scattered about, especially if it can be read and discussed by those who can have a more effective sphere of influence or shorter number of separations of people to the right eyes and ears of those in the right positions and opportunity to most effectually (legally and peacefully) to bring about a successful defense and upholding of the Constitution, which Article 6 (and the Court itself which has consistently reiterated) says is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Judges take an oath to enforce the Constitution, and are given long reasoning in their decisions and expect those who are authorities or know what they are talking about to be able to do the same, and often expect us to be more in depth and knowledgeable than they so as to accept us as peers or authorities to be given even equal footing to have our position even considered by them.

In that light, I simply want a complete presentation that is not piece-meal and if trolls wish to fight it, not have them separate and destroy a comprehensive and intelligent opening summary by insults and blather. By doing the above, by example, it shows that the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen issue articulated in the right way and with the correct information is indeed an intellectually stimulating and proper form of political discussion for anyone with an intelligence quotient near 129 and up, which puts the issue far and away from the tin-foil hat 85 I.Q. and below category those who need to be involved would have previously feared it to be and would not anymore (hopefully) after being able not just to read, but to both fully comprehend and keep up with what is discussed above, perhaps remembering some of their legal training or Greek Classics or advanced 17th and 18th Century (Britain and America) History readings that is void in public education systems, or what have you, and perhaps only extra-curricular even in education at Stanford and Harvard Universities now (so, in a way, it may be a reach out to those of us who are in possibly as young as the 50 and older generations). So it is, what it is.

παλαίχθων palaichthon has also found use in ancient Greek to help us identify and define what a "natural born citizen" is, or at least was, in the mind and interpretations of the Greeks.

παλαίχθων palaichthon means to the effect of: "an ancient or long-standing inhabitant of a country or place", inferring that indigenous is multi or many generations in the nature of the word.

Hence, "natural born" in the sense of how it was understood are able to MULTI-GENERATIONALLY trace such a lineage in the soil through the father...something that is intended by the Founding Fathers for the Presidency of the United States, and something Barack Obama is incapable of doing.

Even the Minor Attic writer, Hyperides, offers a solution for when a society is multi-cultural:
[7] To do so would, I think, be foolish. Granted, if one is praising men of a different stamp, such as have gathered from diverse places into the city which they inhabit, each contributing his lineage to the common stock, then one must trace their separate ancestry.
But from one who speaks of Athenians, born of their own country and sharing a lineage of unrivalled purity, a eulogy of the descent of each must surely be superfluous.
(Hyperides, Funeral Oration, 6.7;
Minor Attic Orators, vol. 2
English translation by J. O. Burtt, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1962).

In Latin, a like term as Autochthon (Αὐτόχθων) is "terrigena": "born of and sprung from the earth" implies a permanency of residence from birth to a single soil and a single people.

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus infers this in regard to discussing who were the indigenes of Britain:

"Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among barbarians, little known."
(Cornelius Tacitus, The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola, 11).

The Latin reads:
Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum.

Cruz is NOT a native citizen by being born into the land of the United States with a United States Citizen Father. He is INELIGIBLE on all counts, and the Original Citizens of the Republic in 1789 would have indeed REJECTED him for any attempt for the Presidency. In fact, under the laws of the State of Connecticut, (see Zephaniah Swift's Laws of Connecticut, pages 167 and 169) I would bet he would still be recognized as a Canadian if for just only because of the laws of Coverture and the suspension of the wife's (his mother's) citizenship under their State Laws...but that is for another discussion.

The leading Founding Fathers were mostly multi-lingual, many of which were well versed in the Greek and Latin Classics. They actually looked to the ancient Greeks and Romans on what worked and what did not work in what was previously conceived as Republics in political antiquity.

Herodotus, in his "Histories", uses autochthon in the sense of both original and ancient. Hence, one who is native and of long paternal standing in the land...often in the sense of ages and many centuries before others came and attached themselves or pushed out those that preceded them. By using aboriginal rather than “natural born citizen” as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted autochthon, the English translation carries over an obfuscation in the original intent of the passage, and is lost on most readers from the early 20th century onward.

Herodotus, The Histories, 1.171.5
A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, translates as:
“…the Carians themselves do not subscribe to it, but believe that they are aboriginal inhabitants of the mainland and always bore the name which they bear now.”

The relevant Greek text reads αὐτόχθονας for the English translation of aboriginal. Later in the same translation of Herodotus, The Histories, 4.197.2, the Greek text reads:
αὐτόχθονα and αὐτόχθονες for the below translations as aboriginal

[2] I have this much further to say of this country: four nations and no more, as far as we know, inhabit it, two of which are aboriginal and two not; the Libyans in the north and the Ethiopians in the south of Libya are aboriginal; the Phoenicians and Greeks are later settlers.

Liddell, Henry George ; Robert Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, (Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie) Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940...defines the ancient Greek word autochthon αὐτό-χθων as:
"Sprung from the land itself" and as the adjective "indigenous, native".

When looking to Plato for advice, we see that in Menexenus 237b - 237c
he places the emphasis on a plural of fathers (2 forefather generations or more) that are required to be born in the land as well as the one born, or 3 generations born on the soil, to be called indigenous or "natural born" stock. It is a nuance most people miss in the first reading.

Plato, Menexenus 237b - 237c, states:
[237b]: "… thereafter we shall exhibit the character of their exploits, how nobly and worthily they wrought them. Now as regards nobility of birth, their first claim thereto is this -- that the forefathers of these men were not of immigrant stock, nor were these their sons declared by their origin to be strangers in the land sprung from immigrants, but natives sprung from the soil living and dwelling in their own true fatherland; and nurtured also by no stepmother, like other folk, but by that mother-country [237c] wherein they dwelt, which bare them and reared them and now at their death receives them again to rest in their own abodes.

W.R.M. Lamb translates autochthon as a native sprung up from the soil in 1925. The immediate above passage comes from: Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925.

The SAME translation was consistently done in the following year with Demosthenes, when the equally credentialed team of C.A. Vince and J.H. Vince translated the Greek of
μόνοι γὰρ πάντων αὐτόχθονες ὑμεῖς ἐστε κἀκεῖνοι
as:
"for you and they are the only indigenous peoples in Greece—“

The passage comes from Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 19.261; but it is in 19.260 that we learn that it is the "men of Athens" who are the only indigenous people...not in the specifically mentioned Land of Greece...but in the place or region in which they found themselves at. Hence, the translators infer Greece by the context of the speakers words of implication and apparent intent.

Perhaps it would have better been read to something after this effect:
“…men of Athens…for alone sprung up from the land itself you are in the manner and place of this region [Greece].”
(Demosthenes, English translation by C. A. Vince, M. A. and J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1926).

If you wish, we can also go to classic Greek Literature which was taught in 18th Century America on this subject:

Aristotle, Politics Book 3 .2
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution….

Aristotle, Politics Book 3 .3
… It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another).

Aristotle, Politics Book 3 .4
“…but there is a rule of another kind, which is exercised over freemen and equals by birth -a constitutional rule, which the ruler must learn by obeying, as he would learn the duties of a general of cavalry by being under the orders of a general of cavalry, or the duties of a general of infantry by being under the orders of a general of infantry, and by having had the command of a regiment and of a company. It has been well said that 'he who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander.' The two are not the same, but the good citizen ought to be capable of both; he should know how to govern like a freeman, and how to obey like a freeman- these are the virtues of a citizen.”

Aristotle, Politics Book 3 .5

…Is he only a true citizen who has a share of office, or is the mechanic to be included? If they who hold no office are to be deemed citizens, not every citizen can have this virtue of ruling and obeying; for this man is a citizen And if none of the lower class are citizens, in which part of the state are they to be placed? For they are not resident aliens, and they are not foreigners. May we not reply, that as far as this objection goes there is no more absurdity in excluding them than in excluding slaves and freedmen from any of the above-mentioned classes? It must be admitted that we cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state; for example, children are not citizen equally with grown-up men, who are citizens absolutely, but children, not being grown up, are only citizens on a certain assumption. Nay, in ancient times, and among some nations the artisan class were slaves or foreigners, and therefore the majority of them are so now. The best form of state will not admit them to citizenship; but if they are admitted, then our definition of the virtue of a citizen will not apply to every citizen nor to every free man as such, but only to those who are freed from necessary services.

… At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens.

Hence, as is evident, there are different kinds of citizens; and he is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honors of the state. Compare Homer's words, 'like some dishonored stranger'; he who is excluded from the honors of the state is no better than an alien. But when his exclusion is concealed, then the object is that the privileged class may deceive their fellow inhabitants.

Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.26, (translated by Frederick G. Kenyon)
“…it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents. “ http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const....

CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT
Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)

LECTURE 13
"Of the President
...(2.) The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen.. these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant.
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States,
ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office,
and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland...."

Cf. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473 (dating 1833) stating the same as the above Kent Lecture 13 quote.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) (1814) 253 @ page 289
"The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
and succeed to all their rights."

By definition, a Law Review in 1845 rightly defined that:
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to alter the definition of what a United States Natural Born Citizen is? It only has the power to alter those citizenships that are within the sphere of being regulated and hampered by law…that is, they have powers to issue uniform rules regarding NATURALIZATION (Article 1 Section 8) only. So whenever a NATURALIZATION LAW is passed by Congress regarding the granting or recognition of citizenship to any who are foreign born and called United States Citizens, it only has the Constitutional Power Over NATURALIZED CITIZENRY and NATURALIZATION.

Even "FLIP-FLOP TED" knows this, because when he ran for the U.S. Senate, he clearly knew at that time he was NOT eligible. Ted Cruz was interviewed by the GOP Texas State Committee in his running for state office, he was stated as saying the ff. http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams3...

"(Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

A United States Natural Born Citizenship is one inherent as being one so indigenous, a concept of removing such citizenship from the person would guarantee that they would be Stateless / without a country while yet in the country of their birth and sole inheritance were it ever taken away. It is a doctrine which is recognized in natural law. You are born in a nation of your FATHER and reared up in that same land you were born in, until at age 21 you take your place as a voting and taxpaying citizen alongside as equal to your father as a citizen of that Father's Land you were born and reared into as a Natural Citizen of. Ted was born in CANADA with a Citizen Father there. He FAILS the very basic concept so readily available to the 18th Century Founders of the Government of the United States and their fathers and their fathers father before them.

See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter "Of Paternal Power", 6:59; and among Chief Justice Roberts favorites, “On The Duty of Man and Citizen According to the Natural Law “ (1673) - SAMUEL VON PUFENDORF,
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 3 On Natural Law;
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 3 On the Duties of Parents and Children;
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 18 On the Duties of Citizens.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @102.
Page 112 U. S. 102
..."Persons not thus [completely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized...."

Let's read that again, in greater quotation:

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @102. , 103
Page 112 U. S. 102
..."Persons not thus [completely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

Page 112 U. S. 103
...It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (in 1829, as stated in his Second edition)
states that:
"…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that THE PLACE OF BIRTH creates the relative quality is established as to us.

…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government."

At birth, Ted had NO STATE of the United States to call his home or place of permanent attachment or to enjoy the rights thereof as its citizen. He had NO attachment to any State of the United States at birth or for the first several years of his life, living as a Canadian Birth Citizen there in CANADA. When Ted was born in Canada, his father was then a citizen thereof. There was no claim made upon him to be a citizen of the United States by his mother at birth, nor in any year up to Rafael's 16th birthday as required by U.S. Federal Law.

PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952,
CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF UNITED STATES OF ONE ALIEN AND ONE CITIZEN PARENT AT TIME OF BIRTH; CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED

SEC. 320. (a) A child born outside of the United States, one of whose parents at the time of the child's birth was an alien and the other of whose parents then was and never thereafter ceased to be a citizen of the United States, shall, if such alien parent is naturalized, become a citizen of the United States,
when- (1) such naturalization
takes place while such child is under the age of sixteen years; and (2) such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of naturalization or thereafter and begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of sixteen years....

You can see this was precedent in the laws of Virginia in 1779 and even before 1776 a same concept preceded the very founding of our nation in the 13 American Colonies such as seen through what Samuel Adams on November 20, 1772 specified was part of the Massachusetts charter.
"... that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which shall go to and inhabit within our said province or territory and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence shall have and enjoy, all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions of us...."

That means born in those lands subject to the jurisdiction thereof or on a flagship going to or from and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, subject to one and only one sovereignty by local allegiance at birth as well as by descent, only these are natural subjects in the Colonies of what would later become the United States.

CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT
Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)

LECTURE 25
"Of Aliens and Natives
...(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens...”

In innocent hypothetical and humor folks:

Question: "What would happen if Donald Trump's chauffeur stated that if he saw Ted Cruz in the rear-view mirror walking behind the vehicle he was driving, he wouldn't know it he would put it in reverse and hit the gas or not?"

Answer: Ted would go before the television cameras, channel John Boehner just as he is about to cry, stomp his foot, and pout to the Media how mean Donald Trump's people are being to him. Meanwhile, another 132 dollars was added to the Secret Service pool on how long before Cruz magically dives into the wheel well of a passing Mac Truck as the Secret Service on cue are all told to look up in the sky, and look up, as Heidi pushes Ted off the curb of a busy street, and if caught, later says he ('ol Ted) tripped (over a minimum of 7 continuous adulterous affairs or "infidelities"), but never the less he tripped (or he committed suicide...same thing), and she herself is perfectly willing to accept the Party nomination, have a debate without make-up on Halloween, and really scare the "bleep" out of the country!

Question: What happened when a member of the Media actually asked Ted Cruz about his cheating on his wife?

Answer: Remember, this already happened. Just as Ted was channeling John Boehner and about to cry, Carly Fiorina suddenly became Ted's surrogate mommy and acting on maternal instincts, lashed out at the question for being asked as Ted, with the all too fake abused child look being happily rescued, began to smile as he look childishly on.

Question: What would happen if Heidi Cruz ever pulled a Lorena Bobbit on Ted?

Answer: Ted would have his male member buried and enshrined in the land of his birth, and in an homage to him, a Canadian Artist would erect a Princeton Sorority second story Bathroom where Ted used to sneak in cross-dressed as a woman, and do the peeping tom of scantily or undressed college gals as he struggled for glimpses between the door cracks as he sat on the toilet, only to find himself as the butt of the joke that he was his own john. It would be the artist rendition of a mannequin Ted, crossed dressed with his eye pressed to a bathroom toilet door crack, and a 300 plus pound ugly broad, half dressed with many ripples of fat looking in the mirror at herself in disgust, and over a loud-speaker, a voice of the grand-father from that Shirley Temple movie shouting, "Heidi! Heidi!"

Question: If Ted ever drops dead from one of his adulterous exercises, what will Heidi demand be played at his private funeral (to be unattended by her or their kids)?

Answer: Oh, Can-a-duh!